One of the more frightening results of the radical Left’s post-election attempt to mount a counterrevolution against President Donald Trump is the confirmation of the existence of an alliance between some of America’s most influential and prestigious corporations and the Leftwing revolutionaries now battling in the streets against country’s duly elected government.

While Black Bloc thugs beat Trump supporters, assault police, burn cars and destroy property, influential corporations, such as Comcast, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Expedia, Uber, Lyft, Anheuser-Busch and Apple have joined radical Leftwing organizations, such as George Soros’s Open Society Foundation and Muslim Brotherhood front group the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), to push for the same goals: open borders and an American surrender in the war Islam has declared on the West.

Google co-founder Sergey Brin even went to the protest at San Francisco International Airport, and, with the collusion of Leftwing federal judges, they are having some initial success.

While the federal legal response has been hobbled by the failure of the Republican-controlled Senate to expeditiously confirm Senator Jeff Sessions as Attorney General, Leftist judges have attempted to usurp constitutional powers expressly granted to the President and Congress.

On January 28, 2017, Judge Ann Donnelly of the Eastern District of New York (appointed by Obama) found that petitioners against enforcement of President Trump’s Executive Order pausing travel from seven terrorist hotspots “have a strong likelihood of success in establishing that the removal of the petitioner and others similarly situated violates their rights to Due Process and Equal Protection guaranteed by the United States Constitution.”

Judge Donnelly then enjoined and restrained the government from “in any manner or by any means,” removing individuals with refugee applications approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services as part of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, holders of valid immigrant and non-immigrant visas, and other individuals from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen legally authorized to enter the United States.

What this means is that Judge Donnelly has usurped the Article 1 constitutional powers of Congress to regulate commerce with foreign countries and set the rules of naturalization and immigration, and the President’s Article 2 powers as Commander in Chief and the officer responsible for the faithful execution of the laws of the United States.

As our friend, Andrew C. McCarthy pointed out in an article for National Review, “Under the Constitution, as Thomas Jefferson wrote shortly after its adoption, “the transaction of business with foreign nations is Executive altogether. It belongs then to the head of that department, except as to such portions of it as are specifically submitted to the Senate. Exceptions are to be construed strictly.”

What’s more, when Congress does legislate in this realm, it must do so mindful of what the Supreme Court, in United States v. Curtiss-Wright (1936), famously described as “the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations – a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress.”

And to the extent that Congress has legislated in that realm it backs President Trump.

Federal immigration law includes Section 1182(f), which states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate” (emphasis added). Section 1182(f) plainly and sweepingly authorizes the president to issue temporary bans on the entry of classes of aliens for national-security purposes. This is precisely what President Trump has done. In fact, in doing so, he expressly cites Section 1182(f), and his executive order tracks the language of the statute (finding the entry of aliens from these countries at this time “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States”).

So, according to our immigration laws, a visa of any sort is at best a conditional license to enter and stay in the United States, and a visa may be revoked “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States,” witness President Obama’s abrupt revocation of the visas of some thirty-five Russian diplomats on December 30, 2016 for an example.

Yet the leaders of many of America’s leading corporations have taken a position at odds with the plain language of the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress, used their brand communication channels and pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into revolutionary groups and joined forces with the anti-constitutional elements now engaged in the opening round of what amounts to a civil war.

Why?

One reason, as reported by Liz Crokin of theobserver.com, was outlined by Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, who said Hillary Clinton made a deal with Google and that the tech giant was “directly engaged” in her campaign. It was widely reported Clinton hired Eric Schmidt—chairman of Alphabet, the parent company of Google—to set up a tech company called The Groundwork. Assange claims this was to ensure Clinton had the “engineering talent to win the election.” He also pointed out that many members of Clinton’s staff have worked for Google, and some of her former employees now work at Google.

During Obama's presidency, more than 250 people moved between jobs at Google or related firms and the federal government, national political campaigns and Congress, according to a report this year by the Campaign for Accountability watchdog group's Google Transparency Project.

In a strange convergence between the interests of the radical Left and the “world is flat” tech giants, destroying American sovereignty and undertaking anti-constitutional action undercutting the rule of law makes perfect sense.

Almost all these companies use H1B guest worker visas, outsourcing and the cheap immigrant labor that President Trump promised to restrict to protect the quality of life for American workers and their families.

Microsoft, Google, Amazon and Apple are all among the top 25 users of H1B guest worker visas and bring thousands of low cost tech workers to America every year. Their business models are based on off-shoring as much work as possible to cut costs, even as they demand lower American taxes and less regulation in the U.S. market.

Google, Apple and Microsoft also hold market shares in their fields upwards of 80 percent. In some cases, they do it without improving their products, as anyone using Microsoft products can certainly attest. Their control of their markets is far greater than those of the largest oil, automobile or home-building firms.

However, to paraphrase author Joel Kotkin, by embracing “progressive” values on issues like immigrant and gay rights, the tech oligarchs are trying to secure a politically correct “get out of jail free” card on the issues that really matter – money and power.

Monopolistic behavior, tax avoidance, misogyny, and privacy violations are OK with the radical Left, as long as you mouth the right words about Black Lives Matter, immigrant rights, gay rights and climate change—and have the money and the channels to broadcast your message.

Tech firms aren’t opposing President Trump’s immigration orders to defend the rule of law, quite the opposite, they have joined forces with the radical Left because they are the primary beneficiaries of the kind of crony capitalism that Donald Trump has promised to end, and joining the Red – Green Axis provides them with the shock troops in the streets that they need to protect their power and profits.

Arrest them for ANARCHY, Criminal Activity, Incitement and causing physical, emotional, and financial harm to those who have no specific dog in this criminal activity. To my knowledge this is TREASON:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them,
or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Article III, Section 3, Clause 1

The drafters of the Constitution reached back (as had the Continental Congress) to language in the statute of 25 Edward III (1350), which limited treason, among other things, to compassing or imagining the death of the king, levying war against the king, or adhering to the king's enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

Thus, in the Constitution, treason consists only in levying war against the United States or adhering to its enemies by giving them aid and comfort. It may be proved only by confession in open court, or on the testimony of no fewer than two witnesses to the same overt act.

The Supreme Court has had occasion to pronounce on treason, albeit infrequently. In Ex parte Bollman (1807), Chief Justice John Marshall rejected the idea of "constructive treason" and held that for treason to be established on the ground of levying war against the United States, an accused must be part of an actual assemblage of men for a treasonable purpose.
Conspiracy short of the actual levying of war is insufficient. But in the related case of United States v. Burr (1807), Marshall tacked slightly. He again rejected constructive treason, but did so by holding that Aaron Burr, if not physically present in an assemblage of men, could still be convicted of treason on the testimony of two witnesses that he actively helped effect or aid such an assemblage—in effect, aided in the levying of war.

Together, these cases made a treason conviction exceedingly difficult for anything other than manifest participation in a treasonable act.

After Burr, the leading treason cases grew out of World War II, for adherence to enemies. In Cramer v. United States (1945), the Supreme Court held that a specific intent—adherence to the enemy, and therefore to harm the United States—is necessary, rather than the simple rendition of aid.

Further, the majority came close to holding that such adherence requires proof, not just of an act that on its face is "commonplace" (such as a meeting) but a manifestly treasonable overt act, evidenced by the testimony of at least two witnesses.

But in Haupt v. United States (1947)—the Court's first affirmation of a treason conviction—the Court effectively relaxed Cramer's standard of proof by holding that the testimony of two witnesses to overt acts might be supported by other evidence as to the accused's treasonable intent, including out-of-court confessions and admissions. In a concurring opinion, Justice William O. Douglas (who dissented in Cramer) affirmed that the separate elements of intent and overt act are amenable to different modes of proof, and only the latter triggers the constitutional requirement of testimony by two witnesses.

Lower courts have had occasion to enter verdicts of treason, commencing with the Whiskey Rebellion, some of them arguably on broader grounds than what the Supreme Court would later countenance. For example, courts held that armed resistance to the collection of taxes constituted constructive treason.

A number of cases arising out of the Civil War also suggested, without directly interpreting the Constitution, that Confederate activities amounted to treason (although the general amnesty of December 25, 1868, pardoned all Confederates). Because of the particular and high constitutional standards associated with the definition and proof of treason, hostile or subversive acts falling short of treason but directed toward the whole polity have been prosecuted under various laws of Congress, including those dealing with espionage (for example, the conviction and execution of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg in 1953) and, more recently, terrorism. The exercise of federal prosecutorial discretion has also led to the prosecution on other grounds of individuals for acts that arguably amount to treason (for example, John Walker Lindh captured in Afghanistan in 2001), or to failure to prosecute at all.

It's rather easy to see that globalism is a issue for the huge firms that do world wide biz, they want their work force, they want their accessible space and they want to own governments so they can continue to make the rules, globalism is the answer and if it acts and smells like communism, so be it.....the promises and the lies about nirvana are the soul of their presentations, with great big worldwide government you the workers of the world can have it all, catch 22...when we the elite say you can.....